Hi Jonathan, Bodvar, and Squad,
Bodvar wrote on 1/3/99 in response to Jonathan in response to me:
> Here is the crux of the matter: "Abstraction of any pattern..." as
> opposed to its concreteness: mind opposed to matter. I feel my cheeks
> grow stiff from harping on the danger of superimposing Intellect's
> subject-objectivization on to the other levels
> In (my) MOQ context there is no s-o (abstract-concrete) division
> outside of Intellect.
Bodvar, perhaps I'm misinterpreting you completely, but when Pirsig
says things like "Values are 'more' empirical than subjects or
objects" (Lila, pg 75), and that "Quality is the empirical reality of
the world" (pg 76), then I manage to infer that the *manifestations*
of static values are subjects and objects. If there's some other way
to see them I don't know what it is? I must be a hopeless SOMite,
since I can't seem to actually think of anything without it being in
the context of subjects and objects. Please, please, give me an
example of how to think without employing it! Could it be that I am
making this more complex than Pirsig intended? Is it really just a
matter of replacing causation with preference? And if we resist
imposing S/Os on the other levels, then how do we study them?
As to abstraction (Jonathan), I view that as an artifact of s/o
logic. I mean, what, after all, are the subjects of abstractions,
other than objects *out there*?
Bodvar continues:
>signal processing is part of the
> Intellect as well BUT IS NOT INTELLECT!!. This is why the MOQ has
> something important to say about what is called Artificial
> Intelligence. The signal-process is "intelligence". You hint to it
> too:...
Yes Bodvar, I agree that signal processing (processing the information
received by our senses) is a biological function, which is filtered
through Society before being examined at the intellectual level.
I agree with SOLAQI, but I don't think I understand where you are
heading with AI.
I take a pretty dim view of it. Computers are incredibly stupid. As
far as I know, there's currently no way to get a computer to do what
Jonathan really wants:
> It would be nice if we could formalize a method of cross
>referencing
> posts so that retrieval is just a click away. This becomes
>important
> when people create new threads combining several old ones.
The computer receives all the data we type in, but getting it to make
sense out of it other than in the most rudimentary way is
frustratingly difficult. I would love to be able to just ask the
computer to show me every post that is *relevant* to some other post;
but as we know, if the subject is wrong, words are misspelled, or the
original post itself uses too many frequently used words, then you're
just going to get back junk that you still have to sift through
yourself.
It seems to me that computers are perhaps the single best example of
*intelligence* applied without regard to *value*. I think you could
easily say they are at the biological stage in their evolution. They
can accurately perceive sense data, but have yet to acquire the
"socialization" or "intellect" they need to extract meaning from it.
>Jonathan says:
> Intellectual "conclusions" lay down the way we
> will respond to subsequent events. In that sense intellect "plans" the
> future.
Biological instinct, though, seems to plan in the same way - laying
out the way we will respond to subsequent events. So I don't think
planning could be used to differentiate the intellectual level.
>Jonathan says:
> Does logic serve itself? That implies *intrinsic* purpose (read the
> September discussion on the purpose platypus).
> I would say that logic has NO VALUE in isolation
I tried looking up the platypus discussion, but due to the stupidity
of the computer... ;)
What if I restated it to say that logic has *value*; values that are
not the same as those shared by society? And instead of intrinsic
purpose, I said intrinsic value?
I'm still uncomfortable with saying logic has no value in isolation.
If s/o logic is viewed as our primary means of making sense of the
world, then the sense it makes would certainly have value to the
person who thinks it, whether that logic was shared with anyone else
or not. Right?
>Jonathan says:
> You can't KNOW that other species engage in S/O logic. You can't even know
> for sure that *I* do (only I myself know that). Remember Descartes? To
> attribute S/O logic to anything other than yourself is a part-subjective
> perception.
But, but, but...! Now *you* are using S/O logic to attack *my* S/O
logic! :) Saying I can't know because I'm separate, just an
observer of my subject. So as long as I'm unable to design an
*experiment* to *prove* otherwise, I have to content myself with just
saying it's unverifiable? What if instead I look at the values
involved? I've observed that horses (for example) have a pretty
sophisticated social structure. Seemingly much more sophisticated
than biology demands. They are also capable of figuring out things.
My neighbor, for instance, has a horse that can open just about any
gate that doesn't have a padlock on it!
> >the 4th level could be defined as a change in attitude. hmmmm.
I said this and you (Jonathan) seemed to agree with it somewhat. But
now that I think about it some more, attitude seems to be a
derivative concept. A change in attitude usually is preceded by a
change in knowledge or values, so it's dependent on a primary change
at the social or intellectual level first. Would you agree?
Best wishes,
Mary
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST